Harris v. U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc.

Filing 64

ORDER Adopting 63 Report and Recommendation. FURTHER ORDERED that 61 MOTION for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Related Orders is GRANTED. (See Order for Details). Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/18/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

WELTONIA HARRIS,

9
10
11

2:10-CV-1508 JCM (VCF)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
U.S. PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC.,

12
Defendant(s).

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s report and recommendation that

16

plaintiff Weltonia Harris’ motion for final approval of class action settlement and related orders (doc.

17

# 61) be granted. (Doc. # 63). No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed.

18

This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

19

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)©. Where a party timely

20

objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de

21

novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is

22

made.” Id.

23

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all

24

. . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

25

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate

26

judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-

27

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objects were made); see also

2

Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s

3

decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any

4

issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s

5

recommendation, then this court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g.,

6

Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation

7

to which no object was filed).

8

Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine

9

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing plaintiff’s motion

10

seeking final approval (doc. # 61), and the comprehensive report and recommendation (doc. # 63),

11

this court finds good cause to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings in full.

12

Accordingly,

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and

14

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ferenbach granting plaintiff’s motion for final approval of

15

class action settlement and related orders (doc. # 61) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its

16

entirety.

17
18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Weltonia Harris’ motion for final approval of
class action settlement and related orders (doc. # 61) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

20

(1) A class consisting of the 47 class members proposed by plaintiff be, and the same hereby

21

is, certified;

22

(2) The settlement agreement be, and the same hereby is, approved;

23

(3) The class counsel implement the settlement by mailing the settlement checks to the

24

class members in accordance with the settlement agreement;

25

(4) If any funds remain uncollected after one (1) year from the date of the court’s order, the

26

plaintiff file a motion for further disposition of the remaining funds to charity through cy pres

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

proposal;

2

(5) Defendants pay class counsel the sum of $85,977.50 for reasonable and necessary

3

attorneys’ fees and the sum of class counsel’s reasonable expenses, not to exceed $4,000, to

4

be

5

calculated after the completion of the mailing of the settlement payments to class members;

6

(6) Defendants pay plaintiff Harris the sum of $1,500.00; and

7

(7) All claims asserted by plaintiff Harris and the class be, and the same hereby are,

8

dismissed with prejudice.

9

DATED January 18, 2013.

10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-